daf bit: Bava Kama 55

[cellio]

A mishna teaches: if a man puts sheep in a barn and latches the gate properly, and the sheep get out and do damage anyway, he is not liable. If he did not secure the gate, however, he is liable. If robbers break in and the sheep later get out, nobody is liable. But if robbers take the sheep out and leave them to wander, the robbers are liable for the damage they do. If a man hands his sheep over to a shepherd, the shepherd becomes liable in all ways that the owner otherwise would have been. And finally (for now), if a sheep accidentally falls into a garden and derives benefit payment is due for the amount of the benefit, but if it got there in the usual way, payment is due for the damage (change in value). (55b)

Today's daf is 58, where the g'maara is discussing this last point further. I think the distinction being made is between market price and property value -- what you could have gotten if you'd been able to sell, say, the fruit it ate, versus the cost of replacing plants that it damaged.

Comments

[eub.livejournal.com]

Hm, I think I follow the distinction between owing the retail price and owing the cost to restore the status quo, but what is "accidentally falls into a garden" versus "got there in the usual way"? Is this about whether entry into the garden was accidental or intentional on the part of the sheep?

I'm surprised that robbers aren't liable for the consequences of not securing the gate.

[cellio]

Accidentally falling into a garden is something like falling down a hillside and landing in somebody else's crop. Getting there the usual way is straying and walking in. That said, I don't claim to fully understand this part.

I'm surprised that they don't say anything about the robbers being liable if they leave the gate open, too. They don't say the robbers aren't liable; they just leave it open, near as I can tell.